In a historical trial carefully « forgotten » by the media, the 3rd Chamber of the Court of Appeal of Versailles declares that Israel is the legal occupant of the West Bank*.

When I first learned that the Court of Appeal of Versailles ruled that West bank settlements and occupation of Judea Samaria by Israel is unequivocally legal under international law, in a suit brought by the Palestinian Authority against Jerusalem’s light rail built by French companies Alstom and Veolia, that received no media coverage, I decided to put to work my years of Law Studies in France, and I meticulously analyzed the Court ruling.

To my astonishment, pro-Israeli media did not cover it either. The few who mentioned the case did not have any legal background in French law to understand the mega-importance of the ruling, and, as a few lefty English speaking Israeli websites reported it, they thought that it was a decision strictly pertinent to the Jerusalem light rail. It’s not.

To make sure I did not overestimate my legal abilities and that I wasn’t over optimistic – as usual-, I submitted my analysis and the Court papers to one of the most prominent French lawyer, Gilles-William Goldnadel, President of Lawyers without borders, to receive his legal opinion. He indeed validated my finding. Then I decided to translate it to English, and it will soon be submitted to Benjamin Netanyahu thru a mutual friend.

First and foremost, the Versailles Court of Appeals had to determine the legal rights of Palestinians and Israelis in West Bank. Their conclusion: Palestinians have no right – in the international legal sense – to the region, unlike Israel, who is legitimately entitled to occupy all land beyond the 67 line.

The context :

In 1990, Israel bid for the construction of the Jerusalem light rail. The tender was won by French companies Veolia and Alstom. The light rail was completed in 2011, and it cross Jerusalem all the way to the east side and the « occupied territories » (more about this term later).

Following this, the PLO filed a complaint with the High Court (Tribunal de Grande Instance) of Versailles France, against Alstom and Veolia, because according to PLO, « the construction of the tram is illegal since the UN, the EU, many NGOs and governments consider that « Israel illegally occupy Palestinian territories ».

The quest for the International Legislation to establish the rights of each party.

In order to rule whether the light rail construction was legal or not, the court had to seek the texts of international law, to examine international treaties, in order to establish the respective rights of the Palestinians and the Israelis.

And to my knowledge, this is the first time that a non-Israeli court has been led to rule on the status of the West Bank.

Why is this an historical ruling: it is the first international case since the declaration of the State of Israel in 1948

It is the first time since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 that an independent, non-Israeli court has been called upon to examine the legal status of West bank territories under international law, beyond the political claims of the parties.

Keep in mind though, that the Court’s findings have no effect in international law. What they do, and it’s of the utmost importance, is to clarify the legal reality.

The Versailles Court of Appeal conclusions are as resounding as the silence in which they were received in the media: Israel has real rights in the territories, its decision to build a light rail in the West Bank or anything else in the area is legal, and the judges have rejected all the arguments presented by the Palestinians.

The Palestinian arguments

The PLO denounces the deportation of the Palestinian population, and the destruction of properties in violation of international regulations. Relying on the Geneva and Hague Conventions and the UN resolutions, it considers that the State of Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian territory and is pursuing illegal Jewish colonization. Thus, construction of the light rail is itself illegal (1).

The PLO adds that the light rail construction has resulted in the destruction of Palestinian buildings and houses, the almost total destruction of Highway 60, which is vital for Palestinians and their goods, and has conducted many illegal dispossessions. Therefore, several clauses from the annexed Regulations to the October 18, 1907 Fourth Hague Convention were violated (2).

Finally, the PLO alleges that Israel violates the provisions relating to the « protection of cultural property » provided for in Article 4 of the Hague Convention of May 14, 1954, Article 27 of the Hague Regulations of 1907, Article 5 of the Hague Convention IX of 1907, and Article 53 of Additional Protocol No. 1 to the Geneva Conventions.

The Court of Appeal does not deny the occupation, but it destroys one after another all the Palestinian arguments

Referring to the texts on which the PLO claim is based, the Court of Appeal considers that Israel is entitled to ensure order and public life in the West Bank, therefore Israel has the right to build a light rail, infrastructure and dwellings.

Article 43 of the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907 stipulates that « The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety ».

Israeli occupation does not violate any international law

« The Palestinian Authority misread the documents, they do not apply to the occupation »

The Court explains that the Palestinian Authority misinterprets the texts and they do not apply to the occupation:

First of all, all the international instruments put forward by the PLO are acts signed between States, and the obligations or prohibitions contained therein are relevant to States. Neither the Palestinian Authority nor the PLO are States, therefore, none of these legal documents apply.

Secondly, said the Court, these texts are binding only on those who signed them, namely the « contracting parties ». But neither the PLO nor the Palestinian Authority have ever signed these texts.

Propaganda is not international law

The Court, quite irritated by the presented arguments, boldly asserted that the law « cannot be based solely on the PLO’s assessment of a political or social situation.«

Humanitarian law was not violated

The PLO mistakenly refers to the wrong legal document because the Hague Convention applies in case of bombing.And … « Jerusalem is not bombed. »

The PLO invokes the violation of humanitarian law contained in the Geneva and Hague Conventions.

But on the one hand, says the judges of the Court of Appeal, international conventions apply between States and the PLO is not a State: « the International Court of Justice has indicated that [the Conventions] only contain obligations for the States, and that individual have no rights to claim the benefit of those obligation for themselves ».

Then the Court says that only the contracting parties are bound by international conventions, and neither the PLO nor the Palestinian Authority have ever signed any of them.

The Court draw the conclusion that the PLO is mistakenly referring to the wrong legal document because the Hague Convention applies in case of bombing. And … « Jerusalem is not bombed.«

The PLO and the Palestinians were dismissed

The PLO cannot invoke any of these international conventions, said the Court.

« These international norms and treaties » does not give the « Palestinian people that the PLO says he represents, the right to invoke them before a court.«

(1) The PLO relies on article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of August 12, 1949, which states that « the occupant power may not deport or transfer part of its own civilian population in the Territory he occupies », and article 53, which states that « the occupant Power is prohibited from destroying movable or immovable properties belonging individually or collectively to private people, to the State or to public authorities or social or cooperative organizations, except in cases where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary for military operations ».

(2) The PLO refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention of August 12, 1949:

Article 23 (g), which prohibits « the destruction or seizure of enemy properties except in cases where such destruction or seizure are imperatively ordered for the necessities of war. »

Article 27 according to which « in the sieges and bombardments, all necessary measures must be taken to spare as much as possible the buildings devoted to worship, the arts, sciences, charitable institutions, historical monuments, and hospitals … »

Article 46 which states that « private property can not be confiscated ».

47 thoughts on “Israel is the legal occupant of the West Bank, says the Court of Appeal of Versailles, France”

Versailles, Shmersailles, all is right and legal, the palos don`t understan they are not a State, but, if » Moi je cretin of France » will the 15.1 together with all 70 Israeli-hypocrite-friends declare » The State of Peste », a recognized legal State, would we be able to reject?? No, because the american-muslim will help destroy Israel , and in his 7 last days he can do whatever he desires . Up to me, he can bark, but l`ONUle, l`UE and l`UNESCroc will sustain with a big Bravo.

JEAN-PATRICK GRUMBERG – Have you visited Jerusalem lately? Have you visited the Arab villages that were added artificially to Jerusalem in 1967, and from which come all terrorists attackers (in the last one, four IDF cadets were killed, in my neighborhood, Armon Hantziv, near the Arab village Jabel Mukaber). So, please, we, most of Jerusalem sane Jewish people, don’t want those Arab villages, and YOU CAN’T HAVE West Bank without having 2.5 million Arabs who live there. When will you understand that???If you want those 2.5 mollion Arabs, be my guest and take them with the damn west bank and with those terror attacks. Enough is enough!

It maybe you only have 1.5M residents in the West Bank, Judea and Samaria. This is because of the way the PA do a census, not very accurately nor very recently. They count in all those who have left as still being resident… about 1M have left. This is according to an article I read recently, sorry I can’t remember whose or where. Maybe someone else can.

« The Israelis don’t want the ‘west bank’ »
No : YOU doesn’t want the West Bank. Fortunatly, most of the Israelis doesn’t give a shit about what leftists like you (like anybody is bluffed by your last sentence ; like anybody ignore who want to leave Hevron and the Patriarchs graves to the muslim colonialists) want. The thruth is than more than 70% of the Israelis consider that Israel does not occupy the West Bank : I know reality is hard to assimilate for your kind, but you will have to assume it.

When the League of Nations ruled in 1922 that Palestine was the « Jewish National Home » it was only 8% Jewish. Only 50,000 out of 600,000 inhabitants were Jews. Today of the 12.5 million people living west of the Jordan river, about 6.2 million are Jews, and about 6.3 million are non-Jews, mosty Arabs. So Jews to today are not 8% as in 1922 but 49%! And if you subtract the nearly 2 million Arabs living in Gaza from the picture then Jews are well over 60% of the population. So sure, Israel could survive with a Jewish majority of 60% incorporating those 2.5 millin Arabs as eventual citizens. Israel has survived terror since 1921 so that’s nothing new.

Actual Jordan is ours as well. Thru a small loophole the Limeys were able to tear away this 80% of the Jewish lands and give it as a bribe to Abdullah. But it is basically ours, and to call Jordan Falestine gives credence to a myth. Jordan is the Pakistan of that area. A nation created to curry favor with Muslim savages. I came to understand why Gandhi was killed. He directly or indirectly helped establish a country that is now a thorn in Indias side just because Jinna and the Muslims made threats and the British as usual were looking for their commission.

A two states solution is meaningless without changing citizenship of Israeli Arabs .
Israeli Arabs obtained Israeli citizenship illegally and against international law.
Unfortunately, Israel long ago became a bi-national , it’s an incubator for Arab people.
Jews will not survive in a bi-national state.
Israel must stop to impose Israeli citizenship to the hostile nation.

Immediately after the establishment of a new Arab state west of the Jordan River (or return Jordanian control ), the Arabs of Haifa, Nazareth, Lod, Galilee, Negev, Jerusalem etc. must become citizens of their new state.
If the Jews do not want to continue to live in a bi-national state, and within a generation become a minority in Israel, they must prepare for a referendum (as in Scotland) based on the UN resolution to divide Palestine for Jews and Arabs.

Fatah-Hamas government requires land free of Jews.
Therefore, Israeli demands are legitimate and forced:
1. To divide National Insurance for Jews and Arabs, by forming the funds from taxes collected separately from Jews and Arabs.
2. To employ only the Arabs, who will replace Israeli citizenship to the status of Israel’s residents.
3. Deductions from wages ( income tax and health tax) of Arab residents to transfer to the Palestinian Authority , of course along with responsibility for health, education , jobs and pensions to all Arabs who wish to remain in Israel.

It’s possible to separate from the Arabs by the law, as the Czechs and the Slovaks or as the Greeks and the Turks in Cyprus .
First to separate economically and then geographically.
Palestinian citizenship to the Arabs, Israeli citizenship to the Jews.
Two Nations – Two States – Two Citizenships !

A two nation state is unworkable. We take for granted that Gaza and the West Bank want to be united, they don’t. Gaza is run by a political party who will not relent their power and ignore democracy. The West Bank is a fiefdom managed by families who are enjoying their vast wealth and power.
Now you tell moi that these two factions can come together and walk off into the sunset arm in arm. Not a chance. The power struggle will be immense with the side who own the most guns winning. Then we will be calling for a three party state.
Solution? Egypt to return lands formerly occupied by Israel . Jordan to relinquish substantial land area to the West Bank. Simples.

In 2013, we know both Israel and Obama had full knowledge of this outcome.
Israel remained quiet and did not promote this ruling in light of the « ordered » freeze on Judea/Samaria construction by the US President. One can only begin to imagine the corrosive and destructive private conversations that occurred between PM Netanyahu and Obama over this ruling, and given all that has gone on these past eight years, including Obama’s farewell writing and pushing of UN Sec Resolution 2334 and his $221 million scandalous « gift » to the Palestinian Arabs which Trump quashed.

Thank you for such an important and informative article. This is one of few media documents that cut thru the treacle and tell it the way it is. Are you an independent paper published in France. If so I cant see the Muslims being very fond of such honest reporting. Since I dont speak French what does your name Dreuz plus he additional minutiae appended to the name to? And are you an independent paper, a conservative paper? Do you publish in Paris?

And the court ruling you posted at the bottom. Is there a way of getting a complete translation of all 32 pages of this ruling?

Thank You Again, hope I see more English Articles about Israel and the MidEast in General plus your takes on the new incoming US Govt. Anything is Se La Bon.

The British objectives in ‘mentoring the revival of a national home for the Jewish people’ under the Mandate for Palestine were not based solely on the 1917 Balfour Declaration. While international support for the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was set in motion by this landmark British policy statement, international intent rested on a solid consensus, expressed in a series of accords and declarations that reflected the ‘will’ of the international community, hardly the product or whim of a colonial empire with its own agenda.
(Napoleon in 1799 offered the Jewish community in Palestine aka The Land of Israel to reconstitute the Jewish State in Palestine as a French protectorate)
The Mandate itself notes this intent when it cites that the Mandate is based on the agreement of the Principal Allied Powers and declares:
“Whereas recognition has therefore been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country” [italics by author]. There was also the January 1919 Faisal Weizmann Agreement.
A June 1922 letter from the British Secretary of State for the Colonies, Winston Churchill, reiterated that:
“…the [Balfour] Declaration of 1917 [was] re-affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres … the Jewish people … is in Palestine as a right and not on sufferance. That is the reason why it necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historical connection.”
In the first Report of The High Commissioner on the Administration of Palestine 1920-1925 to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, published in April 1925, the most senior official of the Mandate for Palestine, the High Commissioner for Palestine, underscored how “international guarantee[s]” for the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine aka The Land of Israel were achieved:
“The Declaration was endorsed at the time by several of the Allied Governments; it was reaffirmed by the Conference of the Principal Allied Powers at San Remo in 1920; it was subsequently endorsed by unanimous resolutions of both Houses of the Congress of the United States; it was embodied in the Mandate for Palestine approved by the League of Nations in 1922; it was declared, in a formal statement of policy issued by the Colonial Secretary in the same year, ‘not to be susceptible of change’; and it has been the guiding principle in their direction of the affairs of Palestine aka The Land of Israel of four successive British Governments. The policy was fixed and internationally guaranteed.”
**It is also important to note that after WWI the Arabs/Muslims received over 12 million sq. km. of territory with a wealth of oil reserves. At the same times the Jewish people were allocated about 120,000 sq. km. nut today they have about 21,000 sq. km. The world at large also ignores that the Arab Muslim countries terrorized and expelled over a million Jewish families who lived there for over 2,700 years and confiscated all their assets, including personal property, businesses, homes and over 120,000 sq. km. of Jewish owned Real Estate for over 2,400 years (which is 6 times the size of Israel and valued in the trillions of dollars, they also took Jewish territory east of the Jordan River which is Jordan). Most of the million expelled Jewish families were resettled in Israel, and today comprise over half the population.
YJ Draiman

The decision of the Court of Appeal of Versailles simply does not say what Grumberg claims. Grumberg’s article simply is a gross distortion of the court’s decision. Any reader of French (and, particularly French legalese) can verify this fact for themselves. I understand that readers of this site tend to be right-wing or far-right-wing, and will not take the time and effort required to read through this highly technical court decision. However, if, by any chance, an open-minded person has come to this site, please be aware that the Grumberg article is sheer propaganda and is, in no way, supported by the French court decision it purports to rely on. The reason why this decision has not been more discussed in the press is because it doesn’t deal with the substantive issues of the occupation. Rather, the court dismissed the case because of highly technical legal issues, such as those relating to the standing of the parties and the « direct effect » of international law in French courts. In short, the Court ruled that it was not the right venue for such issues and that the parties before it were not the right parties to raise them. For anyone who’s actually read the decision, and has legal training, the Grumberg article is simply a preposterous and dishonest piece of propaganda.

Ah – the vulgar, ad hominem attack: didn’t take you long, did it? I read French fluently, but it’s easier for me to write in English – as is the case for many, probably most people who read a foreign language. If there are specific passages in the opinion that contradict my assertions, please cite them. I am happy to discuss them. I have read the opinion 3 times, and there’s absolutely nothing in it that supports the claims in your article. Either you have misread the opinion (e.g., thinking that the court is making a claim when it is merely reporting the claims of one of the parties) or you are relying on inaccurate second-hand accounts. If you want to have a serious discussion about the decision, quote passages in it. If you want to insult me with childish insults, then I guess that shows you have no substantive arguments.

I have zero interest in exchanging insults with you. I am beginning to get the impression that you have not read the decision since you are unwilling to actually discuss it. The court’s decision is a highly technical and careful legal analysis. The decision rests on technical questions of law, particularly what would be called, in common law terms, issues of standing and jurisdiction, as well as the difference between public-law issues (such as the law of occupation) and private-law issues (such as contract). To put it very simply: the court is saying that it is not the right judicial venue to decide substantive questions about the occupation and that the parties before it are not the right parties to raise such questions. Nowhere in the decision does the court take a position about the substantive questions that the plaintiffs are raising – in fact, it explicitly states, again and again, that it will not do so. Here is an example (page 21):
« Les sociétés Alstom, Alstom Transport, et Veolia Transport, tiers au contrat de concession signé par l’Etat d’Israël, ne peuvent répondre de violation de normes internationales qui ne font mention d’obligations qu’à la charge de la puissance occupante … »
This is an easily understandable example of how the court is proceeding here. It seeks to separate the private-law issues of contracts between commercial companies and the public-law issue of violations of the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Regulations by States. Its view is that private companies simply “ne peuvent répondre de violation de normes internationales, » at least not the « normes internationales » at stake in the underlying claim in this case. This is particularly true, according to the court, because: “L’Etat d’Israël n’est pas présent aux débats,” and, therefore, “il ne peut être statué que sur l’illicéité de la cause des contrats signés par les sociétés ». In this passage, the court is crystal-clear : it holds that it has no jurisdiction to rule the question of the legality or illegality of the actions of the State of Israel, but only private-law issues concerned with private companies and their private-law contracts.
This is just one example among many, but it is a representative example. The court rules against the plaintiffs not because it takes a position on their substantive claims about the Israeli occupation, but because the claim has not been presented in the proper venue by, and against, the proper parties. This is why your article is thoroughly misleading – and it is also why this decision has not been more discussed in the press and by international lawyers concerned with the Middle East. It takes no stand on the basic issues of the occupation and holds no interest for people for whom that is the main concern. The court reiterates this again and again. The decision is only interesting for those interested in how French courts deal with plaintiffs who seek to raise questions of public international law against private companies – a highly technical legal question of interest mainly to highly technical lawyers.

Absolutely wrong. The judgment nowhere « condemns the Palestinian Authority. » Nowhere. And you cannot cite to such a passage. But, you do spend far more time in ad hominem attacks than actually engaging in substantive discussion – a sure symptom of someone who knows they cannot win the substantive argument. Good-bye.

The PA was envisioned as an interim organization to administer a limited form of Palestinian self-governance in the Areas A and B in the West Bank and Gaza Strip for a period of five years, during which final-status negotiations would take place.[20][21][22] The Palestinian Central Council, itself acting on behalf of the Palestine National Council of the PLO, implemented this agreement in a meeting convened in Tunis from 10–11 October 1993, making the Palestinian Authority accountable to the PLO Executive Committee

One small correction. The tender was issued for the Jerusalem Light Rail was issued only in the year 2000. Final approval by the Israeli government (a step necessary before issuing the tender) was in late 1999.